By
and of itself, the word anti seems innocuous. Etymologically it
derives from Greek meaning opposite. Nowadays it is more at
against. So when anti prefixes another word it denotes opposition
to what the word represents. Sometimes the meaning is benign, such as with
antacid: an agent that neutralizes excess acid. Oft the word
expresses opposition to pernicious forces and hence we have antiwar,
anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, and anti-globalization. The term
anti-globalization is an unfortunate one in that very few people actually
oppose globalization.

Barbara Sumner Burstyn recently wrote, “But perhaps the most hopeful
thing I’ve read in years is an essay by John Ralston Saul in the March issue
of Harpers magazine. Saul argues from a historical and economic perspective
that globalization is on the verge of collapse and we are about to see the
rebirth of nationalism.”

For me, alarm bells went off at the mention of
His Excellency John Ralston Saul, CC. His Excellency is from deep within the
culture of corporate capitalism and elitism. Much of his writing is
excellent -- as is the writing ability of other liberals like Todd Gitlin
and Christopher Hitchens -- but deeds speak louder than words. There is no
need to disparage personalities. It suffices to point out that when words
and deeds don’t match then there is a word for that. More interesting was
the “hopeful thing” that a “globalization” teetering on collapse and its
replacement by “nationalism” represented.

It was clear from the subsequent text that the
globalization Burstyn referred to was the corporate variety, which favors
the unimpeded flow of capital and places investor rights above the rights of
the local population.

That words presented in a vacuum have
connotations that might supersede their denotation becomes apparent when
presented in the framework of a text. This left me confused about the word
“nationalism” as it was not explained.

Nationalism? This word has much negative connotation. George Orwell wrote,
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his
own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”
Albert Einstein considered, “Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the
measles of the human race.”

Burstyn explained, “Perhaps I should have used
a word less loaded with history -- such as regionalism or local
sustainability. I was simply referring to the revival of a think and act
local mentality.”

Some activists describe themselves with the
prefix anti-something; others will eschew a characterization of themselves
as anti-something. Thus antiwar activists may prefer to describe themselves
as pro-peace. Anti-abortionists prefer to self-describe themselves of
pro-life.

Anti
can obviously be wielded as a prefix of derogation and be used to attack
individuals. Ad hominem, or name-calling, as it is known
colloquially, is, as noted in previous articles, outside the boundaries of
rational discussion and should be disregarded in intellectual discourse.
Social activist Noam Chomsky opined in the NFB documentary Manufacturing
Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media that there is no defense against
this mudslinging. To be called an anti-Canadian, for example, places the
accused in the defensive position of having to refute the charge. Said
Chomsky,

I don’t mind the denunciations, frankly; I
mind the lies. I mean, intellectuals are very good at lying; they’re
professionals at it. It’s a wonderful technique. There’s no way of
responding to it. If someone calls you an anti-Semite, what can you say? I’m
not an anti-Semite? If someone says you’re a racist, you’re a Nazi or
something, you always lose. The person who throws the mud always wins
because there is no way of responding to such charges.

As Chomsky noted, denying the anti-something
accusation is ineffective and mudslingers “always” win by this odious
tactic. If true, then it can be reasoned that people will do their best to
avoid being maliciously labeled. Mudslinging would threaten the expression
of free speech and free association. The
current hullabaloo surrounding a Hollywood blockbuster has drawn the
wrath of many critics who denounce the film as anti-Semitic. Controversy has
probably helped fill the box office coffers but cinema-goers had to risk
being smeared as anti-Semitic for viewing a film so labeled.

As Aesop argued many centuries ago, the false
iteration of something will bring about a diminished future response to it.
A lie told too often will lead to a truthful later rendering being
disbelieved. Anti-Semitism through overuse undercuts its own effectiveness.

Nonetheless, the term anti-something has been
latched onto by other national governments to shake off legitimate
opposition to governmental policies. It is not surprising that the Nasdaq
News would run a headline: “Anti-US
Sentiment Intense In Fallujah Area.” Yet it was somewhat surprising to
read Maureen Dowd’s recent piece “Mired
in a Mirage,” where she wrote, “The administration does not want to
admit the extent of anti-American hatred among Iraqis.”

Surely people are naturally anti-whoever or
-whatever is killing them and it is therefore unfair to label the victims as
anti-their-killers. But the characterization is more unfair, to be
anti-the-killers and opposed to the theft and occupation of one’s country
cannot be portrayed in any plausible fashion as anti-Americanism. If
the word anti is going to be applied with any legitimacy here it must
be applied to the killers. After holding the Iraqi population victim to the
lethal UN sanctions and raining down the cowardly Shock and Awe attack on a
disarmed country, the most appropriate target would be to label the American
government and military as anti-Iraqi.

Yet this is
tu quoque and one cannot convincingly rail against ad hominem
on the one hand and employ a variant with the other hand.

It is facile to brush aside policy-directed
criticism with callous insouciance. However, imperialistic arrogance is as
likely to incur ill favor among allies as enemies. Tarring friend and foe
alike with the same anti-American brush is futile in the long run and will
leave the empire isolated. Earlier I chronicled the
opposition to American policy among South Korean youth even though US
forces are stationed in South Korea purportedly in defense of an invasion
threat from the north. An article in the Los Angeles Times observes
that the increasing Chinese economic strength coupled with “antipathy to
U.S. hegemony and arrogance” has fueled a
growing South Korean preference for Chinese language learning in place
of English.

So the US policy is setting it up to be a
pariah in the world. Yet it continues to act unilaterally and cast invective
to the opposition voiced by friends. France and Germany are derided by the
preposterous epithet “Old Europe” and the level of calumny reached such
ludicrous levels that the word French became replaced by freedom.

It appears a case of the pot calling the
kettle black. The French government (for whatever reasons) and the French
citizenry were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The French called for the
futile UN weapons inspections to be given more time. The US and UK rejected
extended inspections confidently proclaiming their surety of the Iraqi
threat. American and British leaders’ cocksure proclamations withered in the
wind of truth and yet these characters, their mendacity exposed and blame
shunted on to the intelligence community in a brazen repudiation of
Trumanian ideology, continue to spout their nasty aspersions on detractors.
The
New York Times even stooped
to heaping blame on the French.

To prefix an ethnic group or nationality with
anti- and then wield it against someone should raise all kinds of red
flags to the persons receiving such communication. Despite the efficacy of
such mudslinging, the temptation to sling mud back must be controlled.
Sinking to the same level would only grant greater plausibility to the
original mudslinger. It is Chomsky who exposes the tautology of the calumny
underlying the negative anti typology. As an American and a Jew it is
difficult to credibly label him as an anti-American or as an anti-Semite. So
the insidious twist is to label Chomsky and others like him as self-haters.
But certainly Chomsky knows well that there is a proper response to ad
hominem: it is to expose name-calling for what it is; to point out its
empty underpinnings; and to note the evasion of an issue. This Chomsky does
this most incisively. When mudslinging becomes recognizable, the credibility
of the mudslingers is undermined.